Meyer v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2023
20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on City of Rock Springs v. Sturm · Alford v. Rodgers · 60 Wash. 2d 847 - El Cerrito, Inc. v. Ryndak · 1 Ariz. App. 1 - Rorebeck v. Criste · Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v. Wakamatsu
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an acknowledgment of the title of a prior owner does not serve to divest a title previously acquired by adverse possession.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In some cireumstances, enclosing land in a fence is sufficient to 'raise the flag' of an adverse claimant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘ * * * The law contemplates that rights in land may be lost to another by means of adverse possession. We are not the judges of the wisdom of that. The prime object in prescribing how such adverse possession shall be made manifest, of what elements or requisites it shall be composed, is to advise the real owner that his ownership is in danger, and the law has deemed the time fixed as sufficiently long, so as to give him ample opportunity to protect his right; and if he fails to do so, when thus advised, within the time fixed, he is considered as having acquiesced in the transfer of ownership. Monnot v. Murphy, 207 N.Y. 240 , 100 N.E. 742 . Bearing this in mind, it is a reasonable rule that, when a man has occupied a piece of ground, though under a mistaken belief as to the true boundary, for the period prescribed by law, openly, notoriously, exclusively, and in a manner plainly indicating that he acted as owner thereof, the presumption should be, in the absence of explanatory circumstances showing the contrary, that he occupied the land adversely and under a claim of right, easting the burden of explaining such possession upon the person who disputes his right. * * * ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.